Charla Nash Research Paper

In February 2009, Charla Nash was viciously attacked by her employer's chimpanzee while attempting to help get him back into the house, losing both of her hands and most of her face. She filed a strict liability claim against Sandra Herold, her employer and Travis' owner. For the first time in its history, the Superior Court of Connecticut ruled on the liability attaching to the owner of a wild animal that causes injury to another and subsequently allowed the personal injury claim to proceed. The harm that came to Nash as a result of the dangerous propensities that are characteristic of wild animals is what allowed her to pursue the tort of strict liability. Even though Travis had been living with Herold since he was only three days old and was known to be friendly with people—and even waved at police officers when he came across them—he was still a wild animal whose behavior is unable to be predicted or controlled. In 2011, Terry Thompson released over 50 of the wild animals he had amassed from their cages into the surrounding residential area of Zanesville, Ohio. …show more content…
Strict liability holds owners responsible for their actions of their pets, even if the upmost care is taken to protect others from injury or harm. There are good arguments made on both sides of the aisle regarding whether owners of domestic animals should be held strictly liable for injuries their pets cause to others. Many states have statutes in place that protect owners from strict liability claims unless they knew in advance that the animal had a dangerous propensity. Owners of wild animals, on the other hand, are always held strictly liable. This is because it is in the very nature of these animals to be dangerous to human beings, to attack for seemingly no reason at all, and to have an inability to live in harmony amongst